Don't Talk

The speaker in the video is Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney.

Yeah. Don't talk. The Mafia Code of Omerta. Silence. The Video explains why.

Here is Part 2 by a police officer in case you need more reasons.

Which brings up this book:

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

Here is what one reviewer said:

This is a very thoughtful and vigorously argued book about the injustices that arise when prosecutors seek to expand the reach of federal criminal statutes beyond their proper field of application. The author has litigated many of the cases he discusses, and is able to translate the complexities of that experience intelligently and without condescension, but also without all of the unnecessary technical details that lawyers writing for a general audience sometimes get bogged down in. Harvey Silverglate is an institution in his own right: a tireless advocate for civil liberties, prolific writer, and astute student of the law, there are few people who have a stronger commitment to illuminating the practical workings of the criminal justice system and their relationship to broader currents in the law. This is a must-read for those interested in criminal law, civil liberties, and the recent history of the Department of Justice, by a writer who has the courage of his convictions and voices them powerfully and well.

Here is an interview with the author Harvey Silverglate.

BC: Then has the common law tradition been abandoned? Does innocence of intention matter anymore?

Harvey Silverglate: The common law tradition has been essentially abandoned in federal law. Indeed, for a very long time the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law is entirely the product of congressional statutes and administrative regulations, rather than of common law evolution. This presumably was -- in part -- an effort to assure clarity. The law was to mean what Congress wrote and intended, rather than follow the long-standing dictums of common law tradition and interpretation. In theory, this should have produced a body of law with more clarity than the typical state law code.

In practice, despite Morissette's admirable but ultimately failed effort to turn the situation around common law notions were abandoned in the federal criminal justice system and clarity suffered, not to mention the moral content and purpose of the law. Now, people who have done things that most normal folks would not consider a crime, can be sentenced to decades-long stays in federal prison. In truth, any criminal justice system that abandons clarity of obligation and proof of criminal intent has abandoned its moral purpose and hence its legitimacy. And, as my book shows, our federal system of criminal justice has long since lost its legitimacy.

How about that. There is much more.

Ayn Rand explains what it is all about in her novel Atlas Shrugged.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

The upshot of all this: Don't Talk to the Police. Ever.

And while you are at it you might want to talk to your Representatives about what has happened to justice in America. And don't even get me started about Testilying in drug cases.

House of Representatives
The Senate

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Bad Law

The Volokh Conspiracy is discussing whether juries should be informed of the sentences that accompany a crime. Here is what I think:

I think introducing some common law standards back into our judicial system through jury nullification is a good thing.

Will the results always be good? Well no. But neither is our current system where only the facts are judged - not the law as well.

Remember Peter Zenger. Guilty as charged. Jury nullified. Free speech upheld.

The jury is supposed to protect us from bad people and bad law. Jury nullification helped repeal alcohol prohibition. One way to get bad law repealed is to make it unenforceable.

Not to mention runaway prosecutors. There seems to be a lot of those these days.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Save Democracy, Impeach a Judge

We have a new group in America dedicated to getting the proper rulings out of judges. It is being reported in the Washington Post. There is also a link to the group's www site at the Daily Briefing.

You see they think too many activist judges are coming to the wrong conclusions. Except when they are not activist enough and come to the wrong conclusions. So because of the incoherence of their previous philosophy they have a new name for it:

[Phyllis] Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Now these folks have some really good ideas. They want to eliminate the common law from American jurisprudence by eliminating precedent i.e. following previous decisions unless there is error or some very good reason not to follow those decisions. This also means the end of settled law. Now it is very hard to do business in a place where there is no settled law. What are these people thinking?

Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

Well my limited understanding of human nature says if they start intimidating judges fewer will retire.

And if they want Congress to be able to vacate Court decisions they are going to have one little problem:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

That would be in Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution. What it means is that trying to do an end run around judges is generally frowned upon. I'm sure Ann Althouse could go into much more detail.

Now ordinarily these sorts of folks are screaming that we should follow the Constitution. I guess like the left they allow for one exception: when it doesn't get them the results they want.

via Instapundit.